Tuesday, 31 March 2009

It's odd that Bristol East's vegan MP Kerry McCarthy, that lover of fluffy-wuffy, cutesy-wutesy, widdle animals, has been slow to react on a report in the Telegraph today about A-list cause celèbre, PETA. Perhaps she didn't see it, so best I point it out on her behalf.

Animal charity PETA accused of slaughtering thousands of pets placed in their care

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which boasts Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson among its supporters, are accused of only finding homes for seven pets last year. Since 1998 more than 20,000 pets handed to PETA have been put down.

In 2008 official figures show that the charity put down 2,124 animals that had been given to them.

This isn't actually a new story, just more proof that they don't really give a shit about animals at all.

The charity, which collects over £25m in donations, does not run an adoption shelter.

Indeed they don't. Very strange seeing as they are so awash with cash, but then why waste money on the animals when they can spend on ads [YouTube] which help them pally up to celebrities instead. It's not just Ricky Gervais and Pink who have been grifted by these extremist nutjobs, their celeb backers could fill the Albert Hall.

So what do they see fit to spend their money on? Well, in 2003 they offered the town of Hamburg, New York $15,000 to change its name to Veggieburg. That could have been a nice deposit on property for an animal shelter, couldn't it?

Remember that this is the organisation who advocated fish being renamed Sea Kittens to make them seem more cuddly in a move against angling (or fish hunting, as they term it). The British arm of PETA, on fishinghurts.com, follow the directive rigidly.

Many people have never stopped to think about it, but sea kittens are smart, interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the dogs and cats that we share our homes with.

Are these the same type of dogs and cats that PETA are killing (sorry, euthanizing) through lack of facilities?

As a high profile animal rights organisation, it's a bit of a problem for PETA, as unwanted dogs and cats are regularly taken to their headquarters by people who think they are going to be given a decent home. Struggling for ideas as to what to do, in 2006, they were discovered collecting even more animals from local shelters, putting them down, and dumping 80 of them in a skip.

Peta, which is pro-vegetarian, has stood by its two volunteers, insisting there was "absolutely no cruelty" involved in the animals' killing and that they were "simply doing their job" in "euthanising" animals to save them from overcrowded shelters

Time to stump up for a shelter then, one might think, but it's still not forthcoming. They do have a walk-in freezer though, costing about $10,000.

Perhaps the latest publicity might loosen their purse-strings a bit and make them finally cough up, otherwise they may be viewed as hypocritical. But then, hypocrisy has beset PETA since the time of former Vice President Mary-Beth Sweetland's time. She was the type A diabetic who used daily injections of insulin but objected to animal testing. Funny, that.

Insulin was the first hormone identified (late 1920’s) which won the doctor and medical student who discovered it the Nobel Prize (Banting and Best). They discovered insulin by tying a string around the pancreatic duct of several dogs. When they examined the pancreases of these dogs several weeks later, all of the pancreas digestive cells were gone (died and were absorbed by the immune system) and the only thing left was thousands of pancreatic islets. They then isolated the protein from these islets and behold, they discovered insulin.

I'm sure Kerry will get round to condemning PETA soon. Especially since it was undercover filming by PETA that inspired these disgusting bastards, who were jailed in January.

As soon as Kerry has finished lambasting her local council about a herd of 100 cows in a field, she'll be coming down hard on this, believe you me.

Sunday, 29 March 2009

Is the point of number 10 e-petitions a way of letting us know that we'd be better off spending our time trying to demolish a block of flats with a spoon? The latest response that defecated itself into my inbox yesterday would seem to suggest so.

In reply to this perfectly reasonable request ...

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ban all harmful toxins and chemicals from cigarettes and all other tobacco products in this country.”

Details of Petition:

“We are told by the Government that it is not the tobacco itself, but the toxins and chemicals in cigarettes and other tobacco products, that cause a danger to our lives. If this is the case, then we call upon this Government to ban all harmful toxins and chemicals from cigarettes and all other tobacco products in this country, and to make all tobacco products safe.”

... came this one small paragraph that prefaced five, count 'em, five longer ones extolling government policy on tobacco control entirely unrelated to the question.

The Government’s view is that all smoking is dangerous. While we are concerned about the many toxic ingredients and emissions from tobacco, we do not consider that the evidence supports the view that a ban on certain additives alone will lessen the harm caused by smoking.

It seems a very odd reply considering that this is exactly what Mrs Balls was advocating a few short years ago.

The government has called on tobacco companies to reduce the number of cancer-causing chemicals produced by cigarettes. Public health minister Yvette Cooper urged the industry to agree to cut down on potentially harmful chemicals added to cigarettes.

Furthermore, a Department of Health spokesperson was wheeled out to put meat on the bones.

She [isn't it always?] added: "At the moment there is technology for the industry to reduce significantly or remove carcinogens.

"What Yvette Cooper is saying is she want's** the tobacco industry to completely remove or reduce alot** of these carcinogens."

The spokeswoman said the minister could enforce her decision under the Consumer Protection Act which provides a wide range of powers to regulate consumer products to make them safer.

There you have it, then. There exists legislation to empower the DoH to force tobacco companies to stop chucking in the 600 additives that Alan Milburn triumphantly announced in 2000.

Smokers are inhaling a lethal cocktail of 600 additives as well as nicotine every time they light up. In an attempt to disgust people into giving up, the Health Secretary Alan Milburn has released for the first time the exact make-up of a cigarette.

Isn't that exactly what this petition was calling for? An end to the addition of chemicals by those nasty, evil tobacco companies? Surely the government should be in full agreement with this seeing as it mirrors their press releases from the start of the millenium?

Or are smokers expendable for the sake of the greater good?

Because let's face it, the "Smoke is Poison" campaign by Cancer Research UK in 2006 would have been a lot less effective had these additives been banned. You must remember the ads, where Donal McIntyre (funded by the Department of Health, funny enough) went undercover to expose what a righteous cock he was, ignorant of the fact that Labour could have banned these materials from cigarettes years before.

Mrs Balls was very concerned about the effects of the additives in 2001, yet Labour have done nothing to stop the practice and, indeed, in 2009, dismiss an e-petition on the subject out of hand. If the issue of additives was pressing enough to move Mrs B to comment on it eight years ago, it follows that deaths must have occurred in the interim which could have been prevented. One can only assume that smoker deaths are less worth avoiding than non-smoker ones. All for the common good, of course.

I've long advocated that if you smoke, then Labour isn't the party to vote for, but the latest e-petition nonsense shows that if you smoke, they don't give a shit whether you live or die.

It also calls into question the point in the number 10 e-petition site. If a petition that agrees with Labour policy is swatted away in such a dismissive manner, shouldn't the next petition be that the whole process is a bastardisation of public consultation and unfit for purpose?

I've submitted one myself to that effect but I don't expect it will pass the approval stage, the petitions being subject to prior censorship, and all.

**BBC not dumbed down at all, it's only 8 years, they'll spot it soon.

Saturday, 28 March 2009

CHILDREN have been banned from taking eggs to a school for Easter because of concerns about potential allergies.Pupils at Crombie Primary in Westhill, near Aberdeen, had traditionally painted hard-boiled eggs as part of an annual competition.

But the school is facing criticism after replacing them with polystyrene versions because parents of two pupils revealed that their children are allergic to eggs.

That's correct, just two pupils must be protected against a non-existent threat, therefore all kids must be punished. And again, the righteous are nothing if not oblivious to the concept of hypocrisy ... because, as usual, they prove themselves to be incredibly stupid.

Children are still permitted to bring eggs to school as part of their packed lunches, and they continue to be served in the canteen.

So, eggs that can and do get broken, are fine, but not ones sealed with paint and not intended for anything more than decoration.

We're constantly told that bans are justified because 'the majority' want this, or 'the majority' want that, but when it suits them, just two out of a total of 360 will suffice.

Perhaps it's unfair to label the headteacher as 'righteous', perhaps she's just incredibly dim and is blinded by the blizzard of elf & safety shite that infests our schools. However, she undoubtedly lacks even a whiff of common sense, which one would assume should be a top priority for someone who is entrusted with educating the future citizens of Scotland.

But then again, the righteous tag may well be perfectly in order ...

The egg row comes two years after Mrs Hopkins banned pupils from sharing sweets on their birthdays as part of a healthy eating drive.

That sounds a bit righteous ...

Mrs Hopkins said: "To not make the pupils different from everyone else, we decided to use polystyrene eggs."

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Gawd blimey, Jamie Oliver, you've right gorn and done it now, ain't ya, and no mistake.

Regulations put hot school meals at risk

The future of school meals is in jeopardy because only half of secondary schools are on course to comply with stringent government standards, catering leaders will say today.

This could bring about the demise of hot meals in secondary schools, as caterers struggle to cope with the expensive and time-consuming restrictions. From September they will have to buy costly computer equipment to calculate the nutritional content of every meal. Each dish must meet 14 standards, including calorie content, fat, proteins and vitamins.

Caterers say that the obsession with raising the quality of school food, begun by the TV chef Jamie Oliver, has been taken too far by ministers.

Too fucking right it has!

An example of dish that would meet the nutrition requirements is a chicken and vegetable stir fry with brown rice and green cabbage. A typical portion would contain 411 calories, 6.3g fat and 20.6g protein. Burgers with chips and baked beans will disappear.

Listen sunshine, you may well be able to rustle up a nice healthy meal in minutes using only the freshest ingredients for your kids, but I don't reckon a mass-catering organisation is going to be capable of doing the same under such restrictive circumstances. We're not talking Agas and rustic copper pans here. I don't think Mrs Ramsbottom on minimum wage is going to be doing a book signing of her best kiddie recipes very soon, do you?

It's not entirely the fault of the irritating mockney twat, just another example of a good initiative taken to ridiculous extreme by public sector morons who, let's face it, don't seem to have anything better to do than believe healthist propaganda and follow it to the logical dead end. In this case, it is doubly perfect for them as some cheeky celebrity chappie they saw in Heat magazine says it's the right thing to do.

Except he didn't. He advised getting rid of the shit in school meals (too right) and providing a balanced diet. Balanced does NOT mean eradicating every food that kids tend to want to eat.

[Neil Porter, chairman of Laca, said] “We have to meet 14 nutrient standards and will have most problems with zinc and iron. Liver and spinach are the best sources but these aren’t the most popular items in school. We would be providing something that they shun, in order to tick a box.”

I love liver now I'm a 40 something, but I didn't start eating it again until I was in my 30s after poor quality examples were rammed down my throat at school, same with spinach and those stews that had meat which contained the fatty white tubes {shiver}. The competitive tendering required from school providers is so cut-throat, having to deliver wholesome meals at a tiny price, that you can dictate the ingredients, but the quality is never going to be anything like that served up to jovial Jamie's little darlins', Poppy Honey & Daisy Boo (I didn't make those names up), especially since school meal providers are quite simply not allowed by Elfin Safety to buy ingredients from the local farmers market like Jamie (the cheeky scamp) does.

Again, as we have come to expect from the health Gestapo, this is idealistic nonsense and will only serve to push kids into an equal and opposite reaction. Oh yeah, and the food will be more expensive as the overheads for the providers are pushed ever skywards.

The result, quite obviously, is going to be a mass desertion of school food in favour of packed lunches. Teens, who can exit school, will simply pop down to the local chippy. Way to go, you hectoring goons, you've just placed an unsustainable burden on school meals providers, thereby costing jobs, whilst simultaneously decreasing uptake of the 'health options' which you have arbitrarily decided should involve no option whatsoever.

So who devised these barmy rules that disagree with a modicum of 'treat' food for kids once in a while? Why, it's a fake charity called the Food School Trust, of course. Quelle surprise!

A spokeswoman for the School Food Trust, which devised the nutrient standards, said: “They are challenging but there is a very valid reason for them. It is important that they are in place to ensure we promote the health, wellbeing and achievements of children. The School Food Trust has worked with caterers from a number of different school settings. All have proved that through hard work and engagement with students they have been able to produce a compliant, appealing, tasty and varied menu.”

Firstly, if the SFT has worked with caterers so closely, why the fuck are the caterers pretty hacked off with this nonsense? Could it be that the SFT aren't listening? Perhaps, seeing as their entire being is exhibited on their web-site.

The School Food Trust was established by the Department for Education and Skills in September 2005.

It won't surprise you to learn that this 'charity' receives nil voluntary donations, yet receives turnover of nearly £9m per annum which helps fund 6 employees earning a salary of £60k or more.

Secondly, why the fucking hell is a school a place to promote health? I may be a bit of a maverick, but I always thought schools were a place for teaching kids to read, write, add up and learn stuff that parents can't teach, but that life choices and skills were up to parents to instil.

Yet more from the single-minded fucktards at the SFT. One of their stated aims (page 5) is to ...

Increase the take-up of school meals.

A laudable goal, no doubt, but hardly in keeping with removing choice from the menu, and pushing up costs for providers (and therefore end-user price) by way of unrealistic adherence to a misguided ideal. They might as well have just advertised McDonalds.

You know what would be really 'pukka' Jamie, me ole china? How about stopping these geezers in their tracks and telling them that their over-arching idealism is not what you advocated, that kids aren't lab rats, that parents should have a say in what their kids are served at school, and that your well-meaning campaign has been hijacked and is going a bit Pete Tong?

Then, once you've done that, you can sell another book on the subject, as you usually do.

It comes to something when the Guardian are reporting on conclusions from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. They really are taking their sponsorship of the Convention on Modern Liberty seriously, it seems.

Right to privacy broken by a quarter of UK's public databases, says report

A quarter of all the largest public-sector database projects, including the ID cards register, are fundamentally flawed and clearly breach European data protection and rights laws, according to a report published today.

Claiming to be the most comprehensive map so far of Britain's "database state", the report says that 11 of the 46 biggest schemes, including the national DNA database and the Contactpoint index of all children in England, should be given a "red light" and immediately scrapped or redesigned.

The lefty bible is tending to pick and choose the liberties it wishes to defend at the moment, and the CiFers may take a while to jump on board, but at least it's a start. Couldn't be anything to do with their downward spiralling advertising revenues, could it?

How weep-inducing is it that the Rowntree report is proffering hope for Libertarians, that an authoritarian collection of nutjobs at the EU, is our only chance of halting the runaway excesses of our police-state obsessed Labour government.

Another day, another health scare. Except these guys don't fanny around like the 'may cause cancer' lightweights.

Red meat raises risk of all kinds of death

The researchers said thousands of deaths could be prevented if people simply ate less meat.

I swear these people won't be happy until they've turned us into the Eloi.

The U.S. government now recommends a "plant-based diet" that stresses fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

And you know that means the UK will too, in time. In fact, they're already on the way, just taking things one '5 a day' at a time at the moment.

Barry Popkin, an expert in nutrition and economics at the University of North Carolina, said the study was unusually thorough and careful.

Eating less meat has other benefits, he said, and governments should start promoting this. For instance, farming animals for meat causes greenhouse gas emissions that warm the atmosphere and uses fresh water in excess, he said.

"I was pretty surprised when I checked back and went through the data on emissions from animal food and livestock," Popkin said in a telephone interview.

"I didn't expect it to be more than cars."

Nutrition guy reads a couple of news reports and now he's qualified to lecture us on climate change? Excellent! I read Mark Wadsworth, so that makes me a fully-qualified financial accountant, then.

We must surely be approaching a time where everything we eat, drink, or ingest in other ways, has been 'proven' by some study or other, somewhere, to be the cause of all of the main scary diseases that prick up the ears of the health-obsessed (this study ticks all the the boxes next to meat). At which time, we can then safely ignore all of the advice, as no matter what we indulge in, we're fucked anyway.

I'll take my chances with meat, thanks, as there is proof that the alternative is equally dangerous to health. A small study (of one subject) by the Puddlecote Institute has concluded that following a vegan diet turns your brain to mush ... especially amongst females from the Bristol East area.

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

John Grogan, chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer group, said the government had to recognise that pubs - like post offices - were vital to communities. 'It is now a race against time to convince ministers that the British pub has as valuable a place in our community [as the local post office] and is just as much under threat,' he said.

Perhaps he could start by letting his own party leader's head of strategy know that pubs exist as a distinct branch of the hospitality industry.

Tory Lord, Paul White, aka Baron Hanningfield, has been attempting to ascertain the government statistics on pub closures for quite a while now, but doesn't seem to be having much success.

Lord Hanningfield: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many public houses have closed in each of the past three years; and how many of the closures were in Essex.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): We do not collect statistics specifically on public house closures. The DCMS Statistical Bulletin on Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment does not identify the number of pubs in England and Wales but rather the number of premises authorising the sale or supply of alcohol by means of a premises.

Lord Hanningfield: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Carter of Barnes on 15 December 2008, what mechanisms they have in place to record the number of public house closures.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): The Government have no mechanisms in place for recording the number of public house closures ...

I think that's government-speak for 'I haven't a scooby'.

It won't surprise you to learn that Lord Carter of Barnes is not from Barnes, and has no grounding in the hospitality industry, he is a spin doctor brought in from the world of advertising and appointed as chief of strategy by Gordon Brown in January 2008. He is also yet another Jock crowbarred into the UK government at a high level (he was given the Lords gig as part of the package), who was described by a former associate thus,

"Scottish puritanism runs through him, He does things because he thinks he should. He's not a great hedonist and very rarely lets go .... He is always in control. He's a bit scary in that way"

A puritan, non-hedonist. Perfect for fielding Lords' questions about the welfare of pubs then.

Quite why pubs aren't treated as a separate statistic by government is rather baffling seeing as there were 60,000 of them on July 1st 2007 are 57,000 of them. That's 57,000 businesses that aren't tallied by anyone in Brown's bloated public sector. As Lord Barnes admits, the only number that matters, it would seem, is the number of licences issued, which includes anywhere in which so much as a miniature bottle of Shiraz is sold, including cafes, theatres, even churches.

It could explain the source of the latest piece of misdirection from Martin Dockrell of ASH, in response to Ken Clarke's recent commentary on pub closures in Wales.

"Meanwhile, the licensed trade has done rather better, with the number of licensed premises up by 5%."

See what he did there? He was rebutting Clarke's views on pub closures, but threw out a stat about the licenced trade. A very subtle difference which won't be picked up by most, and will be regurgitated by many. It's how liars work.

If that figure is true, could anyone be remotely surprised if saggy-arse Donaldson turned it back on its head and used it as reasoning for further business barriers on pubs to counteract anti-social behaviour? He is already insisting on minimum pricing to penalise the many for the excesses of a small minority, it's not much of a sideways shift to punish all pubs in order to curb the closing time mayhem at a few troublesome venues.

Alistair Darling has no plans to reduce the pre-budget report hike in duty which negated his VAT reduction, due to revert in December, and the accelerator on alcohol is enshrined in previous budgets. A reversal of that is possible, but when unelected puritan after unelected puritan is rolled out to pontificate on one hardline healthist measure after another, it's difficult to see anything substantial being done to make the publican's lot a happier one (you're not even allowed to mention the smoking ban).

Remember Labour MP John Grogan's words because they are significant. "It is now a race against time to convince ministers that the British pub has as valuable a place in our community". Why should they need convincing? Why can't he, as a Labour MP, and Chair of the APBG, just have a quiet word with the Labour front bench?

Quite simply because they don't really give a monkey's chuff about pubs. They can't even be bothered to count pub business losses. If pubs close, so what? Their business model relies on clients that exceed the government's meagre limits on unitary intake anyway. There are still 5% more places where you can buy (not give away free) an ultra small glass of Lambrini in Labour's presbyterian world.

Best just actively vote against Labour and hope (and it is merely hope) that whoever replaces them will take the issue seriously. The alternative is a further five years of the same.

Anti-smoker Kerry McCarthy, on March 13th, referring to the smoking lounges planned for the G20 conference.

F2C's cheap attempt to grab publicity by - how shall I put it? making things up? - has already been well and truly rubbished in the press.

'The press' is now exclusively the lefty bible, The Guardian, according to Kerry, seeing as it was extensively not rubbished elsewhere. The only tiny corner to attempt a weak rebuttal was this pitiful article from Hugh Muir.

So determined is the government to win the favour of the leaders flying into Docklands that it has passed special legislation to suspend the smoking ban in the vicinity of the ExCeL centre for the duration. But it may take more than a grand international bargain struck in the nostalgic surroundings of a smoke-filled room to save the world economy - or resuscitate the Brown premiership.

Anyone care to point out this joined-up journalism to killjoy Kerry? I haven't the heart.

Sunday, 22 March 2009

Only one thing could kick Jade Goody off the headline slot on the BBC ten o'clock news. A non-story about the Tories 'going back' on inheritance tax pledges.

Backed up by footage of George Osborne in 2007 (a completely different financial climate, doncha think?), the BBC somehow contrived to portray Ken Clarke's words as being a massive climbdown.

"I don't think we are going around any longer saying this is something we are going to do the moment we take power."

Comrade Beeb selectively quoted the rest of the interview to hint at a U-turn. Yet it's still going to be in the Tory manifesto, and Clarke's reasoning is entirely sound considering the change in the country's financial circumstances that have occurred since 2007 ... when a certain monocular caledonian cock was in charge.

Cutting inheritance tax would not be a high priority for an incoming Tory government, Ken Clarke has said.

The shadow business secretary told the BBC its main economic goals would be to cut public debt and restore growth.

To coin a phrase, that would seem an entirely 'prudent' approach.

So where exactly is the story?

Well, considering the rest of the piece on the web-site (most of it, in fact) is an attempt to extend the row about the 45% tax rate, and refers heavily to Norman Tebbit and Boris Johnson, I think we know the answer to that.

If Comrade Beeb were searching for a story to prove that they aren't really a celebrity-obsessed shadow of the austere body that we used to expect them to be, they could have chosen to lead on this, which warranted a 30 second slot later on, or this, which doesn't feature anywhere on the Beeb network at all.

They're not even pretending anymore, are they?

In defence of the BBC, perhaps they think that all manifestos are as untruthful as others in the past (Where is that referendum again? And what was that about a partial ban?).

I see that Mandy gets high billing though. A concidence, surely, or else one might be tempted to tell the Beeb to whistle for their licence fee.

UPDATE: It wasn't an attempt to deflect attention from this about Gordon's bezzie mate, was it?.

The News of the Screws has a fantastic story (with pictures) about Nigel Griffiths at it with a stockings and suspenders wearing brunette in his office. They even have pictures - though they declined to publish one of him reclining naked on his sofa enjoying a post orgasmic cigar. Didn’t Griffiths vote to make it illegal to smoke “in the workplace”?

According to the Health Act 2006, of which he was very much in favour ...

2 (2) Premises are smoke-free if they are used as a place of work— (a) by more than one person (even if the persons who work there do so at different times, or only intermittently), or (b) where members of the public might attend for the purpose of seeking or receiving goods or services from the person or persons working there (even if members of the public are not always present).

It was in his office. Check.

7 (2) A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence.

Check.

Fixed penalties(1) An authorised officer of an enforcement authority (see section 10) who has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under section 6(5) or 7(2) on premises, or in a place or vehicle, in relation to which the authorised officer has functions may give him a penalty notice in respect of the offence.

Off you trot then, Westminster Council. The News of the World have the evidence. I do believe the fine is £50.

8 Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place(4) A person who fails to comply with the duty in subsection (1), or any corresponding duty in regulations under subsection (3), commits an offence.

Isn't the penalty anything up to £2,500 per contravention, Ms Serjeant at Arms? Best raid the petty cash. Or you could try this defence I suppose.

(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to show— (a) that he took reasonable steps to cause the person in question to stop smoking, or (b) that he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the person in question was smoking.

(b) will probably do it seeing as you're the troughers in SW1. Although it doesn't work elsewhere.

A PUB landlady has been ordered to cough up £365 after she admitted failing to prevent a customer smoking.

David Mainwaring, defending, described the incident as an "aberration" and said Boyd had been out at a cash and carry while another employee had been dealing with a customer.

Mr Mainwaring said the woman who lit up had now been banned, adding that there were "No Smoking" signs and mirrors to help staff check different areas of the pub.

Then again, there's no real need for any defence at all, is there? Because despite the continual self-aggrandising nonsense that emanates from MPs about their gentleman's agreement to voluntarily ban smoking from Westminster, Parliament is exempted as a 'Royal Palace', and therefore ... wait for it ... fines are unenforceable.

No punishment, no court cases, no legal redress at all.

Treble Havanas all round.

UPDATE: Even better, the Devil points out that the best man at Griffiths's wedding was a Scottish gentleman with one eye. So not only will smokefree legislation be ignored in this instance, so will fucking behind the wife's back.

Friday, 20 March 2009

Don't you just hate it when work gets in the way of a good spleen-venting?

Probably for the best though, as this maggot-infested fuckwittery from Alan 'Dancing Queen' Johnson would have exhausted my powers of profanity.

Letters from a Tory had a much more measured take on it, but was still in disagreement, of course, with a scheme that was described so eloquently in the headline of the day from Al-Jahom.

Dept of Health seeks volunteers for public abuse and beatings

I pray, for their own sake, one of these 'mentors' doesn't decide to impart their 'wisdom' to me. The response might involve sharp things being physically, and with force, inserted where they don't belong.

Holier-than-thou by government appointment. Is there anything in the history of mankind more potentially divisive and anti-social than that?

Talking of holier-than-thou, this part of the story jumped out of the page.

Martin Dockerell, from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the anti-smoking charity, said: "If you get the mentoring scheme right and if you manage to turn things around so it seems that healthy behaviour is not abnormal then that can be very powerful."

YOU again? Oh for crying out loud, you prissy cunt. Fuck off!

Well done to the Telegraph for spelling the habitual government-sponsored liar's name wrong, but even an illiberal fucktard like Martin Dockrell baulked a tad at the idea. That sort-of says that Alan Johnson is a seriously deluded healthist binge-wanker to me. So is the clinically obese spawn of Carrie's mother, Liam Donaldson.

How much money are these fucking idiots at the DoH wasting with daft schemes such as this which will add no value to life in the UK whatsoever? They've already spunked £75m up the wall on the Change4Life campaign which changed fuck all. I'll vote for any party that starves these selfish, intolerant cunts of any funds whatsoever for daily assaults on lifestyle choices. Are you up to the task Tories? Perhaps not if James "I'm a dedicated cock-gobbler too" Brokenshire is to be taken seriously, which, unfortunately, he is by Tory central office.

So many cunts, so few guns.

So, in summation, I'm glad others tackled the subject, so I didn't need to get angry and swear a lot (though I reserve the right to in future). Oh yeah, and Martin Dockrell is still a cunt.

Thursday, 19 March 2009

The Incandescent Sphenisciform flagged up a Telegraph article on Tuesday, detailing the top 20 daft holiday complaints. Very amusing they are too.

Until, that is, one thinks about the motivation behind them. Of the 20 gripes, it seemed to me that about a dozen of them related to intolerance, selfishness or both. Two specifically called for something to be banned.

"Topless sunbathing on the beach should be banned. The holiday was ruined as my husband spent all day looking at other women."

"It's lazy of the local shopkeepers to close in the afternoons. I often needed to buy things during 'siesta' time - this should be banned."

It seems an all-too-ready refrain in the modern age, that if there is something we don't like, it should be instantly banned. It matters not one iota if others enjoy it, selfishness must prevail. Consideration of others is not paramount anymore. Looking after number one appears to be the sole priority.

We've seen this being exhibited (or exploited) by Labour for quite a time now. Kneejerk policies based on selfish and intolerant motives are de rigeur. The acceptance that others may wish to live life outside of the proscribed 'norm' has all but vanished.

So much so that everyone is jumping up and down trying to stop others doing something they don't personally like. If the government can advocate hatred, why not the general public?

Once the rules of this new standardisation have been laid down, we are left with the bolshy dictating, and the more considerate pulling up trees not to offend.

"The brochure stated: 'No hairdressers at the accommodation'. We're trainee hairdressers - will we be OK staying here?"

So what's the answer? How do we stop this headlong sprint towards marginalisation of all that we personally disagree with?

Surely, it has to be effective parenting. There is nothing wrong with bringing kids up to look after their and their families' interests first and foremost, but there has to be an acceptance that others should be entitled to live life as they see fit too. It's a compromise, it's what life is all about.

Obviously, some of the knuckle-draggers who manage to reproduce in their own image will have none of this awareness of others in their limited genetic make-up, so there is a role for educators to chip in.

I thought that was the point of the subject of PHSE & Citizenship that appeared on my kids' school reports recently. Being a newish subject, it's not something I studied myself but it is easy to see that it can have a role if employed correctly.

Look around the site yourself. It is heavy on health & safety; risk assessment; drug, alcohol and tobacco education; emotional health; 'correct' food; financial capability; safety again; and loads of sex ed (maybe like this from Mrs Dale)

There is a search facility, so I tried it. It returned one match for 'lesbian', two for 'racism', three for 'cancer', and four for 'gay'. There were 14 for 'environment'.

However, a search for the words 'selfish', 'selfishness', and 'tolerance', came up blank.

It goes without saying that 'personal responsibility' didn't figure either. After all, if something does go wrong, it's always someone else's fault, so prepare for more holiday complaints along these lines from generations to come.

"We bought 'Ray-Ban' sunglasses for five euros (£3.50) from a street trader, only to find out they were fake."

"No-one told us there would be fish in the sea. The children were startled."

"My fiancé and I booked a twin-bedded room but we were placed in a double-bedded room. We now hold you responsible for the fact that I find myself pregnant. This would not have happened if you had put us in the room that we booked."

"It is your duty as a tour operator to advise us of noisy or unruly guests before we travel."

"We booked an excursion to a water park but no-one told us we had to bring our swimming costumes and towels."

It would be nice if the national curriculum would teach important life skills such as tolerance and personal responsibility. We can only hope they might get round to it one day instead of just focussing on the PC.

Had a meander over to Hairy Moneyball's site (now renamed The Moneyball Buzz, to do with her showing solidarity with bees or something) to see what the vacuous Labour MEP, whom we pay £350,000pa, has been pontificating about recently. It's been a while.

It all seems a bit dèja vue though, as she's still got a bee in her bonnet (see what I did there?) about women who wear high heels. She didn't like them in October, nor in November, and she still doesn't like them ... except now you women have really pissed her off.

I am as bemused as Ms Freeman. I am also angry. Four, four and a half, five inch heels are ridiculous. Women cannot function to their full capacity if they are not as mobile as men.

Why did you ladies that like to wear high heels not listen to the trougher the first two times? You might love your shoes, and think you look good in them, but it's just men repressing women, don't you get it? She pronounced on the matter last year.

I do wonder if we are seeing another move to “keep women in their place”. Killer heels should be strongly resisted by all women.

The shoes you like aren't something that is alluring, they are instruments of torture forced on you by evil mysogynists! She also told you this in November, why aren't you listening?

I think it’s more to do with incapacitating women. “Sexy” is all too often construed as pliant, malleable and ultimately weak.

Hairy has the solution though, ladies. All you have to do is go against nature.

Sad though it is, we do not seem to be able to break out of the ancient mindset that what we have is not good enough. We always want to be thinner, taller, have better hair, etc.

Hairy has broken out of that mindset. She doesn't seem to care about any of the above. See? It's easy! Simply follow The Moneyball fashion buzz (ie. be fat, short, and have a pudding bowl) and you too can be a strait-laced, tedious, charmless harridan who sucks up a huge sum of taxpayers' cash to spout tripe on your blog about something that is totally fucking irrelevant to what you are paid for.

After two posts on the subject which attracted no support whatsoever, she finished the third with this ...

Sisters, we must stop doing this. We are all OK. I’d like to have your comments.

Nothing yet in the past 4 days. I'm sure the solidarity with comrade Moneyball will soon come flooding in. If not, what does she care? She's still rolling around in the EU trough. Snort.

About 400 more people died at Mid Staffordshire Hospital between 2005 and 2008 than would be expected, the Healthcare Commission said. It said there were deficiencies at "virtually every stage" of emergency care and said managers pursued targets at the detriment of patient care.

Health Secretary Alan Johnson has launched an inquiry.

They must have seriously taken their eye off the ball to allow matters to get so deadly. I wonder what sort of idiocy they were implementing which distracted them from their core purpose of concentrating on patient care?

At least there won't be any asphyxiation deaths in the car park. Well done, Mid Staffs.

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

I heartily recommend a full reading of this comment piece at politics.co.uk, entitled "Death to the nanny state" - here are a few snippets to whet your appetite.

This vote demonstrated quite how deep the government's contempt for the notion of individual choice went. Personal preference was an irrelevance. British adults needed to be told how to behave.

Earlier this year, the government implemented a ban on extreme pornography. It did not matter that the people featured in the pornography had consented to appear in it, nor that those who watched it voluntarily chose to do so. The government decided what was right.

The government has begun to treat the British public as a collection of individual units which must be managed appropriately to ensure their productivity and longevity.

But if people don't know what's best for them, governments also misunderstand their purpose. They are not moral arbiters. They are tasked with serving the people, not forcing a world view on them.

It's like psycho-analysis of the nanny state. Should be required reading for bansturbating MPs.

Monday, 16 March 2009

That official rebuttal of the existence of smoking lounges at the G20 summit in full. Err ... there isn't one.

Kerry McCarthy appears very certain though, she reckons it's all water under the bridge, and fabricated by Freedom2Choose.

F2C's cheap attempt to grab publicity by - how shall I put it? making things up? - has already been well and truly rubbished in the press.

She was referring to this piece by Hugh Muir, who no doubt describes himself as a journalist but is, in truth, nothing of the sort.

"Labour 'double standards' as smoking ban is lifted for G20 world leaders," thundered yesterday's Daily Mail. Cue outrage. Not unexpected. Oh, and not true. The smoke trails show there was an item in the Sun suggesting smoking rooms at the summit venue, which was picked up and enhanced by the pressure group Freedom2Choose and fed, with all its flaws, to the Mail. "Just because it doesn't make any sense doesn't mean the government won't do it," Freedom2Choose told us, on being asked for substantiation. Behold, a house on sand.

One might reasonably ask Muir why he was asking Freedom2Choose for a substantiation at all. The story didn't emanate from F2C, it was an article in The Sun to which F2C responded, perfectly reasonably, by way of a press release. Why not ask The Sun? Perhaps he was too scared, or maybe they told him to go fuck himself. Next stop, one would assume, would be the Foreign & Commonwealth Office who are organising the whole shebang. A simple "it's rubbish" would suffice, don't you think, Hugh?

Not likely, seeing as they have shut up shop on the matter. Not only that, so have the Excel Centre, Newham Council, and everyone else involved. How hard can it be to deny something that doesn't exist?

No printable quote to agree with Hugh Muir's personal point of view then, the objective (or should that be objectionable) journalist that he is.

So there was no other option but to target an unfunded grass roots organisation who legitimately used the path of a general press release to ask a valid question. It wasn't 'fed' to the Mail (although I can think of plenty of fake charities, including ASH, that do exactly that without challenge from illiberal idiots like Muir). After a 10 minute phone call which provided no angle whatsoever, despite bolshy and intimidatory questioning, he picked a tiny portion to 'prove' that it was all nonsense.

The Daily Mail haven't felt the need to pull their article yet, nor have The Sun, and The Times have also mentioned it. Google is awash with reports from all over the world.

... but because Hugh Muir says so, Kerry McCarthy concludes that it "has been well and truly rubbished in the press". What's more, she has banned any dissent on the matter of her mendacious and inaccurate reporting of the issue. I know, as I've tried.

How very Labour.

So, still no laughing and rolling around on the floor from government about this allegation, which would be the easiest thing in the world to do. And a search of the G20 facilities still pops up with a match for 'smoking lounge'. Apparently, it's in the red zone. We'd like to read about the "facilities available for heads of delegation" ... but it's protected from us proles, natch.

Kerry, please stop deluding yourself. F2C made nothing up, as your 'source' admitted, why not direct your accusations at The Sun? And Hugh Muir, you're such a dickhead, I'm surprised they aren't selling miniatures of you in Ann Summers.

Sunday, 15 March 2009

Even on a Sunday the porky puritan can't help being a moronic arsehole. Having heard Liam Donaldson (aka Tedious Fat Cunt) banging on about laws on alcohol price that would punish merely those who are responsible drinkers, my red mist-o-meter was on raging crimson. However, on reading around, the blogosphere was already seething with anger at the hypocritical shit (see further down).

I've been banging this drum for quite a while now, of course, so after an initial reaction not dissimilar to the artilleryman in War of the Worlds ("Be on your way, this is my territory"), I settled in to read, with relish, some very fine reactions elsewhere.

EU Referendum appears almost psychic with this article, pointing out that not only is it probably against EU case law, it is undoubtedly going to result in ... kerching! ... more taxes for the government.

Faced with the near impossibility of making unilateral measures work, one can see heavy lobbying by the Scottish government for action this side of the border as well.

There could only be one possible outcome – higher booze taxes for us all. I am sure Mr Brown will be only too happy to oblige, to save his fellow Scots.

Why don't we just let the Jocks rule us all in the UK? Oh, sorry, they already are (see previous smoking laws).

Despite his championing of public health issues, such as the public ban on smoking and now his proposed 'minimum alcohol price', Donaldson has been widely reported to be clinically obese.

It was edited at 02:04, without a citation, and is still there! In fact, someone has added to it. I'm sure it will disappear soon, so I took a screenshot earlier, just in case.

Marvellous.

Oh yeah, nearly forgot the hypocritical bit. The elephant-memoried Freedom2Choose pulled this Times article out today.

A NEW centre for binge drinking has been identified in the heart of London: the headquarters of the British Medical Association.

The BMA, which condemned 24-hour drinking last week and called for higher taxes on alcohol, faces accusations of hypocrisy after complaints of drunken antics at its central London headquarters.

It has emerged that while blaming everyone else for Britain’s binge-drinking culture and demanding a general sobering-up, the BMA wants to stay open for two hours longer, until 1am. Its application to extend its drinking licence has attracted allegations of antisocial behaviour by partygoers.

However, residents of nearby homes have complained of the guests “frolicking” on scaffolding outside the building, “urin-ating” outside neighbouring properties on Tavistock Square and “causing disturbances” in the early hours.

Don't ever think that dying is going to enable an escape from Health & Safety red blue tape. Even if you're dead, you're still a hazard apparently.

Gary Smith, 62, visited the grave of his aunt and uncle at All Saints’ Church in Carshalton last Monday.

Mr Smith, who regularly visits their grave to pay his respects was appalled to find a wooden stake had been nailed into the back of their gravestone and blue twine tied round it.

He said: “There are 22 graves which have had these wooden stakes nailed to them, and the blue tape tied around them.

“They have disturbed the earth and made the stones more loose. I’m not sure what they think they are doing but these are people’s dead relatives.

That's pretty poor behaviour from the council workers. The councillors at this authority must be up in arms about it.

Councillor Colin Hall, executive member for the Environment and said: “I am sorry for any distress to the resident who has contacted your paper. We make great efforts to treat grave sites with respect."

Respect? Do you even know the meaning of the word? Is there anyone in the UK who would class nailing bits of wood to a gravestone as 'respectful'?

“However, the council is required by the Health and Safety Executive to inspect every headstone in our cemeteries and churchyards following a number of deaths and injuries across the country from falling headstones. Any that are found to be unsafe, as this particular headstone was, must be made secure.”

Good grief. Still, I suppose Mr Smith should count himself lucky the stone is still standing. In Aberdeen, they knock the fuckers over.

Saturday, 14 March 2009

Following the huge success of Comic Relief last night, I presume The Hub of Commissioned Alcohol Projects and Policies (HubCAPP), who proudly carry the charity's logo on their web-site, will benefit with increased funding for their projects.

Comic Relief is funding Alcohol Concern to identify and submit alcohol projects and initiatives for young people onto HubCAPP.

And it's no surprise that Red Nose Day collects so much, considering the imaginative fund-raising efforts being used.

For example, last night at my local meat market pub, £2 was raised for every one of the special Comic Relief red jelly vodka shots they managed to shift. Over a dozen large trays of them were flogged to the assembled fancy dressed 18-25 year olds before Mrs Puddlecote and I left for a Ruby Murray.

Nothing like binge-drinking for a worthy cause, is there?

UPDATE: Thanks to Bearwitch in the comments for pointing out that there are other avenues that can be taken in support of Comic Relief. £28.44 per case from Tesco. Why not buy 3 or 4 and drink yourself stupid for Alcohol Concern.

Friday, 13 March 2009

Tax wouldn't be so taxing if we didn't have to look on, head in hands, as Brown and his incompetents waste it in increasingly imaginitive ways.

My quarterly tax demand for profits I haven't yet earned, arrived yesterday. One short phone call to HMRC later (20 minutes is almost lightning quick), I think I had halved it as they went looking for the £13,000 payment that they have somehow lost. They tend to do thata lot. Childish, I know, but the comment "Is Gordon spending it quicker than you can allocate it?" just seemed to involuntarily spill from my lips before being asked to list all the details of the BACS payment that is sloshing around somewhere in their inefficient system.

Running a business under a Labour administration is nothing short of a living hell. The increase in franchising is perfectly understandable (I know of two friends who have thrown their arms in the air and taken that option instead so as to avoid employing staff, holding stock and running vehicles), it's just that it's not an option for me.

Having spent over 50% of my time in the past 2 years scrambling through bureaucracy and red tape involving the CRB and paper pushers at the DVLA and VOSA, it was with no small amount of dismay that I read the EU ruling on staff holiday entitlement for the long-term sick in January.

This isn't Government money, or EU money we are talking about. All of these rules tell businesses how much of their own profits they should pay. Government like spending other people's money, it seems.

The EU have now done it again. This lot really do live in a fluffy land filled with cuckoos and cuddly bears, don't they?

As Britain slides into depression, the EU insists on TREBLING maternity pay

Women will be entitled to full pay for the first 18 weeks of maternity leave under radical EU plans. The dramatic extension of existing rights would more than triple the amount currently received by new mothers in Britain.

the European Commission spokesman has said: 'Given that the mortgage, the rent, the cost of food continues when people are on maternity leave - and there are also the cost increases from having a baby - it makes sense from our point of view.'

I'm sure it does, in your wibbly-wobbly idealistic world where businesses are festooned with infinite reserves of cash ... like the EU. In the real world, though, businesses have finite resources, and prospective parents should be weighing up if they can afford to have a child before doing the ugly-bumping, not just popping a sprog out and expecting someone else to pay for it.

The simple fact is that businesses are never awash with cash, it is always a balancing exercise, as Woolies found out recently after decades of trading. An economist will tell you that even small tweaks will result in business losses, never mind a potentially huge hit such as this legislation presents.

Ms Harman pledged: "We cannot and will not allow women to become the victims of this recession."

Well, I cannot think, for the life of me, of any possible measure that will ensure women lose their jobs quicker than men in a recession, than this, can you?

Give them their due, though, at least Labour are standing up to the EU on this issue, not that it will make much difference.

Details of the new maternity pay plan were spelled out by Business Minister Pat McFadden, who said the UK was fighting to block it. The Government faces an uphill battle, however, because most other EU countries support the idea and Britain does not have a veto on it. Ministers are trying to negotiate an opt-out to reduce the salary entitlement.

I can envisage hard-pressed firms up and down the UK tearing up the CVs of females under 35 when recruiting, and having one eye on gender when assessing necessary redundancies. You can refuse as much as you like Harriet, but when push comes to shove, businesses make what they consider to be the most efficient savings (you may want to look that word up), and legislation such as this puts women right in the firing line (pun unintended).

Better get rid of the potential child-bearers quickly though, as Alistair Darling is closing off that escape valve.

Darling to set minimum redundancy payment in fresh blow to struggling businesses

Companies could be saddled with extra costs under Government plans to offer workers a guaranteed payment when they lose their jobs, it has emerged. Ministers are looking at a scheme to impose a legal minimum on how much employers have to hand over to employees who are dismissed.

They are desperate to fend off growing demands from unions and Labour MPs for a massive increase in the levels of redundancy pay required by law. The move has raised alarm bells among business leaders who fear it could cripple companies with additional costs just when they are trying to survive the recession. Gordon Brown is under intense pressure from a coalition of unions and 146 Labour MPs who want him to honour a manifesto commitment to improve payments to laid-off workers.

It's a manifesto commitment, Gordon. Just discard it like Labour usually do, what's the problem?

It all adds up to Labour, and sociopathic EU fruit-loops, completely misunderstanding the daily problems faced by businesses big and small. But why should they understand? They aren't faced with any quandary other than where to spend the unfettered budgets that we are forced to provide for them (once they find where they have put the money, that is).

Call me naive, but in a 'global' recession, I'd have thought these dolts would have been cutting back on the idealistic excesses, rather than ladelling it on heavily like Jacqui Smith on the chilli sauce.

Thursday, 12 March 2009

It was tempting to append this crap to the previous article, but rank pre-determined parental abrogation of this scale deserves a fisking all of its own.

Tomorrow's news is already written today, by some daft, easily-led, submissive flower at the Times. Check the date of the article.

A tax on chocolate? Utterly idiotic...but a surcharge on sugar would be sweet

The people most likely to suffer from too much chocolate are not adults, but our children

You know what? I sometimes lay awake at night wishing someone would think of the chiiildren, don't you? I'm so glad Sarah Vine is doing exactly that. Shame she's passing her self-determination and her parental responsibility onto the government though.

Then, in an uncharacteristic fit of piety, I decided to give up chocolate for Lent. And it's only now that I have been clean for almost three weeks that I understand what Walker is getting at. He is right. If the cravings and blinding headaches I've been suffering are anything to go by, chocolate is a highly addictive, quite possibly toxic, substance. And it probably ought to be taxed accordingly.

Chocolate is a toxic substance? Really? Have you any scientific evidence? Or are you employing hyperbole to justify a quite unsustainable standpoint. If you are getting headaches, it's probably because your brain is suffering from a famine of intelligent thought. It has the capacity for much more than your stifled imagination can offer and is dying of boredom. How else can anyone explain this cockwaffle?

The main problem with this theory is that chocolate has the highest approval rating of any known substance, apart from, maybe, labrador puppies and Barack Obama. Suggesting that it be taxed is like suggesting a ban on football.

Except a ban on football would be vetoed by more than two fucking votes, even amongst miserable jock doctors.

No one likes a drunk; smokers smell; but chocolate-lovers are seen as harmlessly indulgent creatures.

I think the term you were looking for in the first two instances was 'in my opinion'. I do see your point though. You are trying (unsuccessfully) to equate binge-drinking and smoking with eating the odd bar of chocolate.

Now we have isolated the stunningly lame basis for your article, let's see what other bullshit you will be trumpeting today ... err tomorrow, sorry.

The almost universally negative response to Walker's idea is perfectly understandable.

You didn't wait long enough to see the result of the vote, did you? The rest of the world were negative, granted, but almost half the Scottish Doctors questioned seemed to think it was a bloody braw idea.

People dislike the thought of a nanny state and a tax on chocolate seems like the worst kind of attack on personal choice.

If you can suggest an attack on personal choice that is worse, I'd be most interested to hear it. I need to gen up on the sort of crap that tits like you are going to attempt to tax or ban next.

What about self-restraint, what about will-power, what about personal responsibility, the libertarians will wail. And they're right. People should be free to make up their own minds. Democracy is all about informed choices.

Yep, correct on all counts. Democracy and freedom rely on foundations such as personal responsibility and the right to make informed choices.

And that, I'm afraid, is where the problem lies.

Eh?

Because the people most likely to suffer from an exaggerated consumption of chocolate are not well-informed adults such as you and I. They are our children.

Oh I see. Shouldn't someone be thinking about them? I dunno, perhaps the parents?

Children, on the whole, do not really understand the concept of self-regulation.

That's what parents are for.

Sure, they can, if strictly trained, be made to follow certain rules, but it is in their natures to be unrestrained.

That's what parents are for.

They have no experience to tell them otherwise. Put a five-year-old in front of the TV and he or she will watch it until you pull the plug.

That's what parents are for. Are you getting this yet?

The same goes for computer games, possibly more so for sweets and chocolates.

See above. You're getting rather tedious now.

Give a child £1 to spend in the corner shop, and he or she is unlikely to come home with a banana and a pint of semi-skimmed milk. They will cram as much rubbish into their pockets as their budget permits. It's not just the clever marketing; it's that these sugary treats give their little metabolisms a hit that they - young, inexperienced, uncomprehending - are almost powerless to resist.

Give them less money then, or explicitly tell them what they can and can't buy. That's what parents are for, for fuck's sake!

And the problem is that, as a parent, you can control only what a child eats within your own four walls. All that careful indoctrination about sweets rotting the teeth goes only so far. With hundreds of brands of cheap chocolate available, and more popping up every day, protecting our offspring from the risks of excessive calorific consumption is a losing battle.

It's all in the parenting, you twat. If they don't listen to you, perhaps your parenting skills are shit. Just a thought.

Anything else you want the state to help you with regarding your kids? A council officer knocking on your door at 8pm and tucking them in, perhaps? A government-approved inspector sitting by their bed to stop them wanking when you are asleep?

So I would go even farther than Walker. I would impose a tax on refined sugar. I'm not talking about prohibition, just enough to make people stop and think;

Not talking about prohibition? How very fucking generous of you, you lazy fucking harpy?

Why lazy? Because you think that your responsibility for your kids should be absolved by allowing the state to dictate. You are one horrendous bovine, seriously.

Sugar, really, is the great poison of our generation. It's in all the things that are bad for us: fizzy drinks, processed foods, nasty cheap snacks. Not only is refined sugar (as distinct from naturally occurring sugar) superfluous to our diets, it is also the one thing that if consumed in excess when young can lead to a short and unhealthy life.

Your kids' lives are entirely your responsibility. The state should have nothing to do with it. If you can't stop them eating what you don't wish them to, try harder. And if you think that government increasing taxes is going to mean that you can relax and forget your obligations, let me remind you of this. After all, you wrote it.

it is in their natures to be unrestrained

If you can't restrain them (which seems to be your problem), what on earth makes you think that a few pence on chocolate is going to do the trick?

Budge up, Dr Walker: I may well be joining you in that bunker of yours.

Off you jolly well toddle then. With you two cuddling up together, just the one mortar shell will suffice.

It was a ludicrous suggestion, and was quite rightly turned down by Scottish Doctors ... but by only TWO votes?

Scottish GPs have voted against a proposal for chocolate to be taxed in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes to tackle increasing levels of obesity.

Dr David Walker, a GP in Lanarkshire, warned that chocolate had lost its status as a "treat" and had become a harmful addition for some people.

However, his motion calling for a tax on chocolate was defeated by two votes at a BMA conference in Clydebank.

So the Daily Mash was 100% accurate about the medical profession.

... filled to the brim with arrogant, self-regarding pricks who think they own your body

Incredibly, although this particular initiative has been thrown out, disappointingly narrowly, the focus had already shifted. Chocolate is obviously too emotive and is causing a problem.

So let's go after sugar instead ... that way, we can tax absolutely bloody everything!

Professor Roger Corder of The London School of Medicine said Walker was concentrating on the wrong problem. "Targetting chocolate is misguided. If we targeted sugar, you'd capture all unhealthy foods," he told the BBC.

I've encountered a hell of a lot of illiberal shitsticks in my time but reading that tonight (on a French site, notice?) knocked me sideways. What's the collective noun for medical cunts? A cess-pit? A skip? A festering-culture-on-a-petrie-dish?

Just shut the fuck up and cure us when we are ill, please? That's your job. If you want to make laws, get your name on the fucking ballot paper. And don't use the money we pay you out of our taxes to fund your deposit, either.

Following this article in the Mail, BBC Radio Five Live had scheduled a piece on the Drive show this evening, but it was dropped.

Now, I'm only guessing, but these possible reasons come to mind.

1) Comrade Beeb couldn't verify the truth of the story.2) Comrade Beeb couldn't make a 'balanced' story due to non-participation of government or event organisers3) Comrade Beeb were told to drop it

Regarding 1), the Mail seem quite happy to leave this on their web-site:

But the Foreign and Common Office, who is hosting the event, said it was aware of the smoking rooms and has launched an investigation.

Local authority Newham Council is also looking into the matter as environmental health officers in charge were not aware of the amendment.

Being firmly in the public domain, that evidence would be enough for an investigative broadcaster to at least raise the issue, so that just leaves 2) & 3) - and others mentioned in the Mail piece could be involved in 2)

If 2) was the problem, why were the government, the F&C Office, Newham Council, and the Excel Exhibition Centre all unavailable for comment?

Perhaps it's because if the piece ran, there would be some questions to answer, namely ...

a) Patricia Hewitt said in 2006 that "there is absolutely no safe level of exposure [to second hand smoke]". If that is the case, why are G20 delegates allowed to take their chances, while the rest of us are not?

b) The suggestion of separate smoking rooms for other, less important buildings (or even the Excel Centre on another day) has been dismissed because non-smoking workers would have to enter them for cleaning purposes etc. Are the smoking lounges at the G20 summit magic 'self-cleaning' ones? Likewise, the ones in the EU Parliament and the UN building? If not, the government (and EU and UN) is deliberately harming the health of the cleaners for the sake of their buddies, obviously. (remember, this is the most dangerous gas on the planet we are talking about here. There are safe levels of exposure for every substance known to man, including radioactive materials, but not for second hand smoke)

It's quite clear that they don't want to talk about this, hoping it will just go away. Whichever way one slices and dices it, it screams hush-up.

Admitting that the smoking lounges exist, which they most definitely do, will mean that three courses of action are available (running out of bracketed symbols here).

i) Ban them (actually, they are already banned, so that should read 'rescind the amendment').ii) Allow the same for all of us.iii) Do nothing.

It would seem that Labour have chosen iii).

Labour, the 'Do Nothing' party.

Thinking about it, there is a iv). They could admit that the smoking ban is donkey cock legislation ushered in by small-minded bigots who are too cowardly to admit that it's just because they are selfish and don't like the smell; that the clinically-obese Liam Donaldson and his chums are lying the big one about what is really only a negligible risk; that their idealistic cockmongering has contributed to the misery of almost 3,000 pub closures since July 1st 2007; and that this Labour government are the most inept collection of authoritarian cunts the country has ever had the misfortune of being pissed on by since the Palace of Westminster was built ...

... which is much nearer the truth.

UPDATE: ASH are not happy bunnies, I think they believe that a Newham Enviro Officer should stomp in there and slap a £50 fine on Obama. Deluded morons.

Smoking Ban "Amended"

Editorial Note: The Department of Health said "The simple fact is that the Health Act 2006 does not make any exemptions for diplomats or diplomatic events."

The people responsible for the premises (which are enclosed public premises and workplaces and therefore should be smokefree at all times) are responsible for making sure that no smoking takes place. The relevant local authority (Newham) is responsible for enforcement for premises within their borough. Those responsible for this event should be aware that there are no exemptions under the Health Act 2006 for this type of event. If there is a breach of the regulations the local authority enforcement officers will need to consider appropriate enforcement action.

DOCTORS should be taxed every time they open their fat, smug, overpaid mouths, it was claimed last night.

Bill McKay, a slightly overweight shop owner from Harrogate, said: "If I take my car to the garage and the mechanic tells me that low quality motor oil should be banned my immediate reaction is tell him to shut his fucking face and fix my bloody car because that's all he's paid to do and if I want his overpriced opinions I'll fucking ask for them.

But that doesn't happen because the British Mechanics Association isn't filled to the brim with arrogant, self-regarding pricks who think they own your body and prescribe whatever pills the computer tells them to."

It's about time the writers of TDM were given an award for 'services to comedy and common sense'.

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

A sandwich bar worker was sacked after footage of him stuffing lettuce leaves up his nose - before he put them back in their serving tray - was posted on YouTube.

Nothing like taking a job seriously, is there?

Bloody stupid, undoubtedly, and well worth instant dismissal (Subway aren't in the Public Sector, so it's allowed), but I'm going to take a deep breath, count to ten, and not comment on the fact that this was considered a prisonable offence.

An obviously classy ... ahem ... lady, saw this video and was angry about it. So she immediately alerted environmental health officers and wrote a stinking letter to the company acted.

The irate woman went to a branch of Subway in Brownhills, West Midlands, and hurled a chair at him ...

Here is an idea for Britain's Traffic Taliban to get their teeth into.

Drivers in China are being forced to eat raw chilli by police to stop them falling asleep at the wheel.

What would be the UK equivalent, one wonders? Being compelled by mobile plod to digest a Zinger Tower Burger at Leicester East services perhaps?

Arch driver-hater, Richard Brunstrom, Chief Cunstable of North Wales Police, may prefer a more robust approach. I reckon he'd plump for mandatory administering of a Dorset Naga the moment you drive into Cymru, isn't it. Look you.

China's roads are among the most dangerous in the world due to overloaded and speeding trucks. Drivers switch lanes without signalling and often ignore traffic lights.

Tuesday, 10 March 2009

The Whip is contacted by a source who works for the company involved in the G20 Summit being held at Excel in London's Canning Town next month. "Although smoking is banned within work places in the UK and has been a vigorously enforced Labour policy, it is being allowed at the G20 summit - indeed, there is a smoking lounge," he reports.

Oh, I see. If this is the case (The Sun?), we can't make up our own minds about the lethal health risk, but our masters can.